- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:13:42 -0400
- To: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>
- CC: public-webcrypto@w3.org
On 09/21/2015 03:28 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> 21 сент. 2015 г., в 12:17, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> написал(а):
>
>>
>> On 09/21/2015 12:14 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>>> 20 сент. 2015 г., в 17:36, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> написал(а):
>>>
>>>> On 09/20/2015 03:37 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>>>>> Hello Harry,
>>>>>
>>>>>> 14 сент. 2015 г., в 12:43, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> написал(а):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple has been left out
>>>>>> until they remove the webkitSubtle prefix and replace it per spec with
>>>>>> 'subtle', which has been communicated to them.
>>>>> Could you please clarify why this precludes testing?
>>>> We can't have browser developers "checking" to see if they are using
>>>> Apple's special prefix. We're happy to test, but we'd prefer you guys to
>>>> hurry up and promise to remove the webkitSubtile prefix. Can you do that?
>>> WebKit's implementation is known to be based on an older version of the spec which is not compatible with the current one, and I think that it's a good idea to have that detectable from JavaScript. Notably, a developer has a way of knowing that HmacKeyParams.length uses different units - situations like this is exactly what vendor prefixes are for.
>>>
>>> WebKit's implementation is real, it ships in real products (and was among the first WebCrypto implementations), so it feels strange to have it excluded based on a technicality. This e-mail thread in particular discusses something that is in no way related to having a prefix - the list of supported algorithms wouldn't change upon removing it.
>> Is there any possibility we can simply upgrade WebKit's implementation
>> to be compatible with the newer version of the spec?
> I agree that this needs to be done, however this certainly can't be done soon enough to affect the data gathered in this thread, which is already ongoing.
What would a time-line be for this?
We can start gathering data on the Webkit implementation - which after
all acknowledges all your hard work! - in terms of algorithms if we can
get a timeline for compatibility. We'll take your word for it :)
yours,
harry
>
>> I understand this may not be the highest priority for you, but it means
>> a lot to us at W3C to have a consistent spec without vendor prefixes
>> before we exit Rec. The entire point of the CR testing, which determines
>> the 'browser profile' in terms of algorithms, is to ensure developers
>> can use the API across browsers without any browser-specific dependencies.
> I think that adding WebKit as it stands now in shipping products to the test matrix would be of good service to developers.
>
>> We know lots of hard work has already been put in, so this final push
>> would be great.
>>
>> cheers,
>> harry
>>
>>> - Alexey
>>>
>>
> - Alexey
>
Received on Monday, 21 September 2015 22:13:49 UTC